Laviduce

18 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

This is an extract from a British document from 1988. Apparently the British military believed that the "uparmoured Chieftain" has better frontal protection than a Leopard 2, while the Challenger 2 has inferior protection against KE than an uparmoured variant of the Abrams announced "recently" by 1988 standards. IMO the latter refers to the DU armor upgrade of the M1A1 HA. Interesstingly this is said to provide better protection only over a narrow frontal arc... does this mean that the Abrams' armor array does not provide full protection of the 60° frontal arc? At least other images also imply the that...

 

The graphic above is from a Swedish document and might have been taken from an official M1 sales/info brochure, as Sweden tested the Abrams. Based on this, the "turret front" arc for the M1A2 covers the crew compartment only at angles of about 17-21° to each side of the centerline.

 

As for the Leopard 2 and the Chieftain: Honestly I am quite confused. In 1988 the second generation armor package for the Leopard 2 was adopted (based on German marketing documents send to Sweden) - if that is true, the British assessment might still be based on an earlier Leopard 2 model with the original first generation armor package from 1979. That this would provide lower protection than the Challenger 1, Challenger 2 and M1A1 HA Abrams is quite easy to believe (weight 55.15 tons vs 61-62.5 tons).

Apparently the document does not disclose what tank variant exactly is meant with the uparmored Chieftain and how armor protection was rated (disclosed figures, estimates, weighting for KE/CE protection, etc).

I don't believe that they meant the Chieftain with Stillbrew armor, based on the fact that its protection against shaped charges seems to be extremly weak (no composite armor on the hull, except for a bit Stillbrew armor at the turret ring) and at best should have comparable protection at the turret (weight of both tanks is  very similar, but the Chieftain's turret is made from inferior cast steel, that offers less protection per weight).

 

Maybe the British military was still toying with the idea of upgrading Chieftain tanks? In the end they had concrete plans for upgunning the Chieftain with the L30 tank gun and adopting the Challenger 2's FCS, which were only canceled after the end of the Soviet Union. So it seems possible that the uparmored Chieftain statement is refering to a hypothetical armor upgrade that was not adopted in service. Maybe something similar to the original Chobham armor upgrade concept form the 1970s, the Chieftain Mark 5/2 or the Chieftain 900:

 

 

I  am getting the impression that they are talking about the tanks pictured above (Stillbrew Chieftain Mk10, Challenger 1, Leopard 2A4 (early), M1A1, Vickers Mk7/2) The picture seems to have been taken some time in 1990.

According to the Challenger 2 book by Osprey the Leopard 2A4 and the other contestants were "current production models". As we know; the latest models of these tanks were the Chieftain Mk11, Challenger 1 Mk3 (minus ROMOR armor), Leopard 2A4 with 2nd gen. special armor, M1A1 HA, Vickers Mk 7/2.

There is at least 1 problem with this statement.  The Leopard 2A4 pictured above seems to be one of the Leopard 2A4s that still features the 1st generation special armor. If take a closer look at the heavy side skirt mountings we see that they seem to correspond to the earlier models not the latter vehicles (vehicle 97+ batch 6, batch 7 and batch 8) as seen below.

Batch 8 Leopard 2A4:

It seems that this protection feature above the heavy side skirts was dropped in post 1992 Leopard 2A4s.

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

You gotta find a Abrams variant a couple of tonnes heavier than a Leopard 2 first... current top-models of the Leopard 2 are heavier.

Leopard 2A1 ---- 55,15 tons

Leopard 2A4 ---- 56,5 tons

Leopard 2A5 ---- 59,7 tons

Leopard 2A6 ---- 60,1 tons

Leopard 2A6M ---- 62,3 tons

Strv 122 ---- 62,5 tons

Leopard 2E ---- 63 tons

Leopard 2A7+ ---- 67,5 tons

M1 ----    54,5 tons

M1A1 ----    58 tons

M1A1 HA ----  61,3 tons

M1A2  -----   62 tons

M1A2 SEP ---- 63,1 tons (up to 65 tons)

8 hours ago, Militarysta said:

ATGM Konkurs from Kurds Perszmenga on Leo-2A4 back:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMHO even WNA-H22 hydraulic pomp will be not damage. Very lucky for crew. 

 

 

 

I was thinking that such a hit would definitaly damage or destroy the hydraulic pump. You really think the pump is undamaged ?

On 6.1.2018 at 5:18 PM, Serge said:

 

I found this :

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/378831-leopard-2a0-spoiler-alert-image-intensive/

How about this?

Although it is a work in progress, any constructive criticism and/or feedback to enhance or correct the model would be greatly appreciated!!!

3 hours ago, Militarysta said:

 

 

Turret armour weight 8,9t (including ciitadele from RHA plates)

 

 

 

This confuses me even more. Rolf Hilmes explicitly states that the combined mass of the hull and turret chassis including special armor inserts accounts for 48 % of the entire weight of the 55t Leopard 2. This comes to about 26,5 t

In the Spielberger book the combined weight of the basic hull and turret (Panzerwanne and Trumgehäuse) are given at 21 t. Would Hilmes be off by 5,5 t (20+ %) ?

Some more information on the mass distribution of the Leopard 2:

R. Hilmes gives the following mass distribution:

Total System Weight: 55.150 kg

Electronic components: 3.860,50 kg - 7 %

Powerpack + full fuel tanks: 8.548,25 kg - 15,5 %

Running Gear (.i.e: tracks, suspensions, wheels, etc.); 11.857,25 kg - 21,5 %

Bare hull and turret with composite armor inserts: 26.472 kg - 48 %

Weaponry (main gun, Coax MG, etc.): 4.412 kg - 8% (not sure whether or not this includes the gun mantlet or not.)

W. Spielberger/ Oberst Icken gives the following values:

Turret mass without ammunition+equipment: 16.000 kg

Turmgehäuse/Turret Shell: 8.910 kg

Hull mass without ammunition+equipment: 37.800 kg

Panzerwanne/Hull Shell: 12.100 kg

Total hull and turret shell mass: 21.010 kg

Main Weapon System (120 mm RH gun) without mantlet: 3.100 kg

1. The bare hull and turret mass is stated to be around 26.472 kg with composite armor inserts. The empty turret and hull shell has a combined mass of 21.010 kg

2. This let's me believe that the composite armor in both the hull and turret has a total mass of 5.462 kg.

From P. Krapke:

--------------------------------------------------------

Total weapon assembly

Weight without mantlet: 3100 kg

Weight with mantlet (Leopard 2AV): 4290 kg

---------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, these pictures do help !

This is a compilation of properly scaled drawings that might be of interest:

2 hours ago, Militarysta said:

...

1. Thank you guys, those STRV 122  pictures were the ones i was looking for.  I would need to aks you for another favor thou. Would you guys know the actual length of the hull ammunition rack of the Leopard 2? Also , do you have any images that show if the rounds are totally enclosed in the  ammo rack tubes?   I would think that the entire round, KE or othertowerwise, would totally fit into the tube with only the base of the round (~5-10 mm) sticking out at the end. Since most of these 120 mm rounds are abou 980 mm in length i would assume the loaded rack not to be  much longer than 1020 mm. Either way , any feedback would be appreciated.

2. What kind of LOS estimates would you guys give the leopard 2 glacis. I am getting the impression that is about 620 mm on average.

3, Do you guys have any estimates on the The Leclerc's glacis LOS thickness ?  It seems to be  around 500-550 mm, followed by the fuel tank of unknown thickness (100 - 200mm?), which then is followed by the ammuntion drum (around 1000 mm in length)

3 hours ago, Militarysta said:

 

I show You a magic trick:

 

1) https://www.google.pl/

2) tags: Leopard 2 armour EMES 15

3) WOOOHA:

https://www.google.pl/search?q=Leopard+2+armour+EMES+15&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLw6a9u73WAhUmSJoKHWgoCL0Q_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=635

all what You ask!

 

Magic!

Amazing magic trick that i, sadly, have already tried with no luck :-/

2 hours ago, Toimisto said:

Some LEO2A6FIN pics: 

 

https://imgur.com/a/HT1Fw

Thank you for the pictures, there are some things i have not seen before.  :3

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Doesn't make a difference, internally the armor blocks end at the same places. The first photo shows a Polish Leopard 2A5 (ex-German). The second photo is taken from a factory, when 2A4 turrets were upgraded to the 2A5 standard. This turret upgrade in this case is pretty much finished.

 

 

Do you mean something like this?

Yes, something along those lines but where the bottom of the EMES-15 bay is visible. The first image is the closest to what i am looking for.   Either way , i do not think the EMES will extend much further past the bottom edge of the cylindrical optical channel as seen in the 2nd image.    I wonder if the upper edge of the circular opening is touching the lower edge of that 650 mm block or if there is a noticeable gab.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Here one can see the different thickness of the two turret cheeks:

Note. The left cheek armor module (840-860 mm thickness) is nearly flush with the gun trunion. The right cheek armor module is about 200-300 mm thicker!

 

 

Different view. The upper armor is part of the 640-660 mm thick armor block behind the gunner's sight.

 

 

M1 Abrams turret provides protection equal to 400 mm steel armor vs APFSDS ammunition according to declassified documents. The protection against shaped charges is 750 mm.

Thank you very much for the images.

Is the first image a Leopard 2A4 or a Leopard 2A5/6 ?   It looks like a 2A5/6 turret to me with the roof and side wall liners.   I was aware of the size differenze and that the total LOS thickness of the area below the cutout for the EMES-15 is about 1000-1100 mm.  I just incorrectly sized the EMES bay by about 150+ mm. I am currently working on a 3D model of the turret and i will incorporate the changes accordingly.

BTW would you have any images that shows the EMES-15 channel bottom? I would greatly appreciate it.

10 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

Yyyy BS?

 

Armour block behind EMES-15 optic is 660mm thick. It's more then T-64B, T-72M1, T-80B turret armour (for 30.degree from longitiudal axis) - so it's hard do name it as "weak spot".

Place under EMES-15 optic is the same thic as right side - but whit just "space" for EMES-15. And i mesured it by myself. So rally - amrour protection for left snd right turret side is the same.

Gun mantled mask is far far understimated - it 420mm thick + "weige" after it. An only mask weight 630kg(!) (without gun, coaxial MG, itp -just only shield):

 

 

 

And when we compare this gun mantled mask dimensions and weight (ca 630kg) and known special armour features in compare to simple RHA weight

then gun mantled mask have protection between 230-270mm RHA vs KE and circa up to 460-540 vs CE...

+

steel plate after it of course

 

You are correct, in my estimates i had overestimated the size of the EMES15 channel by about 130 mm, shrinking the space that could be used by composites. So the turret front is more uniform than in my initial estimate. I will make further adjustments. Either way, even with my "low" estimates , this gives the Leopard 2A0-2A0 turret  superior KE resistance compared to the M1 turret. I am strongly convinced that the KE resistance of the early Leopard 2 is between the 420-570 mm RHAe for the left turret and right turret front within the 0-30 degree frontal arc.  I will prepare an updated and more detailed diagram soon.

11 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Welcome to SH, @Laviduce!

I agree with SH_MM, so I merged the topics.

Hello and thank you !

SH_MM:

Quote

when it comes to the Leopard 2's armor protection, he cites "estimates from the internet": 570-630 mm steel-equivalent protection (RHAe) at the turret front, 500-550 mm steel-equivalent protection at the UFP, and 350 mm at the LFP. The protection against shaped charges is equivalent from 350 to 1,100 mm of steel armor depending on location. It is worth mentioning that Hilmes studied engineering and worked at the German Army office for military acquisition (BWB, nowadays BAAINBW) as a referent for tank technology before retiring.

Did you ever consider that this might be referring to the Leopard 2A4 and not the Leopard 2A0-A3?  With the Leopard 2 vs. T-72 comparison in his latest Kampfpanzer book, I would find no reason why he would not refer to the Leopard 2A4 instead of the older Leopard 2A0-A3 versions.

SH_MM:

Quote

 

Paul-Werner Krapke also worket at the BWB, but several years before R. Hilmes. He was the leitender Baudirektor (sometimes translated as construction director or project manager) during the Leopard 2's development. The graphic showing how the Leopard tanks would compare to the T-62 and T-72 is taken from his 1986 book and has no further explanation about the utilized ammunition. In theory it might be based on any Soviet APFSDS until the 3BM-32 Vant with a cited average penetration of 560 mm steel at 0° and 2,000 metres distance and the 3BM-42 Mango with an average penetration of 500 mm under the same circumstances. It is also possible, that the 125 mm APFSDS was simulated using German ammunition (either the 120 mm DM13 or DM23). At least the Leopard 2AV's armor was apparently tested using a 105 mm smoothbore gun (as used on the earlist ten Leopard 2 prototypes). The Leopard 2AV was also tested against the MILAN ATGM (~650 mm penetration).

 

Luckily the T-62 is also displayed. Since this book was published in 1986 it would probably  refer to the most advanced 115 mm APFSDS round of the time, the 3BM-28 from 1978. This lets me believe that the diagram refers to a T-72 round of the same time period. The prime candidate  would be the 125 mm 3BM-22 from 1974. The diagram below is my KE resistance  estimate for the Leopard 2A0-2A3 based on the initial Leopard 2 protection requirements, the Krapke diagram, Militarysta's estimate, Hilmes comments and diagrams.

The orange and blue areas vary between 360 and 320 mm RHA KE resistance.  The EMES 15, gunners periscope, and EMES 15 optical channel contribute primarily to these inconsistent values. I considered the left turret cheek the most heavily armored part of the turret. The 500 mm  area covers only a  relatively small area on the right turret front. I do not think they would consider such a small area necessarily the "toughest part of the turret" because it covers a relatively small area of the turret front. The diagram  would overall satisfy the intial Leopard 2 protection requirements , the Krapke diagram, Militarysta's estimates, Hilmes comments and diagrams. The diagram would also explain the dissatisfaction of the US and UK concerning the uneven armor distribution of the Leopard 2. I will keep refining the diagram and my model and add RHAe CE values to it as well.

SH_MM:

Quote

Paul Lakowski's whole concept for estimating armor protection is flawed, starting by the input data and the arbitrarily imagined armor array. His values and the hypothetical armor arrays used to generate these, have been proven to be false. He supposedly made a newer version of all/most his armor estimates, but they are not available to public.

 

With his LOS values  being already off at the beginning, i figured that he might be "overestimating" certain values and be a bit off with other values.

Hello Everyone,

I have the strong impression that the Leopard 2A0-2A3 turret seems to have a KE resistance of around 400-500 mm and a CE resistance of around 700 - 800 mm. based on:

The P. Krapke threat diagram:

The R. Hilmes estimate: 450 mm RHA  KE:

The Armed Forces Journal: 400 mm RHA KE / 700  mm RHA CE:

P. Lakowski  estimate using the established LOS thickness values:  495 - 590 mm RHA  KE  / 700 - 830 mm RHA  CE:

Militarysta estimate:  450-500mm RHA KE  / 860mm RHA CE:

The armor protection requirement for the first Leopard 2 prototype:

Inside the crew compartment (turret and hull):

1. Secure against 105 mm x 617 HK (APDS), fired from a distance of 800 m from a  horizontal  frontal direction within the frontal +-15 degree arc. (Coverage:) The front starting from ground level up to 1154 mm. (This effectively means the glacis/upper front hull turret front). Flanks starting at 890 mm from the hull bottom going up.(This effectively means the sponson area and side turret).

2. Secure against 90 mm x 602 HK, fired from a distance of 1500 m from a  horizontal  frontal direction within the frontal  +-15 degree arc. (Coverage:) The front starting at 490 mm from ground level (This effectively means the glacis, lower front hull and turret front). Flanks starting at 890 mm from the hull bottom going up.(This effectively means the side hul area and side turret).

3. Secure against 20 mm DM43, fired from a distance of 100 m from a  horizontal direction all around the tank (360 degrees total). (Coverage:) The front starting at 490 mm from ground level (This effectively means the glacis and lower front hull as well as turret front). Flanks starting at 890 mm from ground level going up.(This effectively means the side hull area and side turret).

4. Secure against 20 mm DM43, fired from a distance of 500 m from with an impact angle of 20 degrees (from the horizonal) all around the tank (360 degrees total). (Coverage:) The front starting at 490 mm from  ground level (This effectively means the glacis, lower front hull and turret front). Flanks starting at 650 mm from ground level going up.(Side hull covered by the side skirts and side turret).

5. Secure against 155 mm high explosive shells, splinters/shrapnel from a height of 10 m above the engine deck.

This image also helped:

Could any of you give me some feedback and tell me what you guys think ? Thanks in advance!